You have been logged out of PLUS+

Our records show that you are currently receiving a free subscription to Supply Chain Management Review magazine, or your subscription has expired.
To access our premium content, you need to upgrade your subscription to our PLUS+ status.

Sorry, but your login to PLUS+ has failed.

Is supply chain management strategic or tactical? Are the best supply chains collaborative? Should the goal be an integrated supply chain or an integrative supply chain? The answers are a mixed bag, according to this month’s contributors.

History is a poor predictor of future sales in today's fast-moving world. Yet many companies still rely on traditional demand planning systems such as time-series analysis to create forecasts. Learn how new demand sensing technology is helping companies capture and analyze the abundance of real-time data in the digital supply chain.

As they operate in this environment of escalating risk, an alarming 45 percent of surveyed executives say their supply chain risk management programs are only somewhat effective or not effective at all.

By Patrick Burnson

February 11, 2013

According to a new survey from Deloitte, global executives are increasingly concerned about the growing risks to their supply chains and costly negative impacts such as margin erosion and inability to keep up with demand. As they operate in this environment of escalating risk, an alarming 45 percent of surveyed executives say their supply chain risk management programs are only somewhat effective or not effective at all.

“Supply chains are increasingly complex, and their interlinked, global nature makes them vulnerable to a range of risks,” said Kelly Marchese, principal, Deloitte Consulting LLP, who specializes in manufacturing operations and supply chain strategy. “This increased complexity, coupled with a greater frequency of disruptive events such as geopolitical events and natural disasters, presents a precarious situation for companies without solid risk management programs in place.”

According to the global survey of 600 executives, supply chain disruptions are not only more frequent, they are also having a larger negative impact. Among the findings:
· More than half (53 percent) of executives said that supply chain disruptions have become more costly over the last three years.
· Executives from the technology, industrial products and diversified manufacturing sectors were most likely to report that supply chain disruptions have become more costly.
· Nearly half (48 percent) of executives said the frequency of risk events that had negative outcomes – such as sudden demand change or margin erosion—has increased over the last three years.

Margin erosion is considered the most costly outcome of supply chain disruptions, with 53 percent citing it as one of their top two issues. Consumer products, diversified manufacturing and energy companies were especially likely to report margin erosion as one of their most costly issues.

The findings echo those made in several other studies carrier in SCMR over the past 12 months.

Forty percent of respondents cited “sudden demand change” as one of their two most costly problems – a reflection of ongoing challenges involved with growing customer expectations, short product cycles and emerging competitive challenges. Executives at retail and technology companies, which operate in a world where markets change rapidly, were most likely to identify demand change as being costly.

Executives surveyed recognize the strategic importance of supply chain risk, with 71 percent responding that supply chain risk is an important factor in their strategic decision-making. Nearly two-thirds (64 percent) claim to have in place a risk management program specific to the supply chain.

However, only 55 percent of surveyed executives think their risk management programs are extremely or very effective. The top two challenges according to executives surveyed were “lack of acceptable cross-functional collaboration” (32 percent), followed by “cost of implementing risk management strategies” (26 percent). There are also organizational factors making effective supply chain risk more difficult: Three-quarters (75 percent) of executives said their supply chain risk management model is organized around silos, which can lead to a lack of supply chain visibility and collaboration, and make it difficult to assess and manage risk on a holistic basis.

Although surveyed executives report using a wide range of tools to manage risk, only 36 percent use predictive modeling and less than one-third (29 percent) use risk sensing data, worst case scenario modeling, or business simulation—all tools that help drive more proactive management of supply chain risk.
As reported in SCMR, analysts at last fall’s NavisWorld suggested that a “holistic” approach, including “cloud” technology be applied. This observation was also emphasized in the report:

“Many companies have some form of a supply chain risk management program, but unfortunately they do not always get the results they need from these programs,” said Marchese. “To be effective, companies should take a holistic and integrated approach to managing supply chain risk and go beyond traditional approaches. Because of the complex nature of today’s supply chains, disruptions will inevitably occur. True resilience means building in the ability to recover efficiently and decrease the impact of those events.”

About the Author

Patrick Burnson

Patrick Burnson is executive editor for Logistics Management and Supply Chain Management Review magazines and web sites. Patrick is a widely-published writer and editor who has spent most of his career covering international trade, global logistics, and supply chain management. He lives and works in San Francisco, providing readers with a Pacific Rim perspective on industry trends and forecasts. You can reach him directly at .(JavaScript must be enabled to view this email address).

The best supply chains are more than a collection of technologies and processes. As supply chain evolves from tactical to strategic, they enable a company’s go-to-market strategy and competitive position.